Ask the climate sceptics: do you reject the Galileo Movement as Andrew Bolt did?

Your conspiracy theory seemed utterly stupid even before I knew which families you meant. Now checking the list of banking families you’ve given me, your theory becomes terribly, shamefully familiar.

Two of the three most prominent and current banking families you’ve mentioned are Jewish, and the third is sometimes falsely assumed to be. Yes, this smacks too much of the Jewish world conspiracy theorising I’ve always loathed.

Again, I insist: remove me from the list of people you claim are prepared to advise you. I’ve never advised you, Malcolm, and would never want to. I am offended to be linked to you.

Andrew Bolt

The time has come to ask his fellow climate sceptics if they share Andrew Bolt’s view about the The Galileo Movement

avoid acts or words that could be seen as sexist/racist/offensive/personally directed

I will not only repudiate those that send offensive email, but publicise ISP information if I find out if they have engaged in acts of abuse/hate mail. I have zero tolerance for such behavior, regardless of who it is.

Let’s draft something guys and girls – an open letter than can be forwarded to these individuals.

27 thoughts on “Ask the climate sceptics: do you reject the Galileo Movement as Andrew Bolt did?”

Recently the Galileo movement made the following statements about several prominent banking families……….

As you are aware, this sort of rhetoric is widely associated with anti-semetic conspiracy theories. Recently,in response to these statements, Andrew Bolt, a high profile sceptic moved to distance himself from the Galileo movement with the following statement….

The Galileo movement still have you listed on their website as an advisor (or whatever they are supposed to be). Are you prepared to publicly remove yourself from this asscoiation as Mr Bolt has done or do you still wish to be associated with them.

I suspect not (!) – but I am interested in their answers , if they respond. I’m across most of their writings so have an inkling. The question is: does Andrew Bolt and News Limited/Corporation sit happily with these people? Do you see my point🙂

The laws of conspiracist ideation dictate that some of them will be in such a state of cognitive disrepair that they will identify Bolt as a gatekeeper of the conservative sub-layer of the cultural dialectic and assume that his job is to proscribe the limits of debate amongst that demographic while distracting from other events or information.

I guess what I’m saying is that they are all fringe dwellers even in the denier camp and of no consequence these days.

Any influence they might have once had has diminished to almost zilch. Ball is almost never quoted these days. Lindzen is a has been. Gray has gone emeritus as has Singer. Jo Nova and David Evans are, as you’ve pointed out, paranoid conspiracy theorists – ie batty. John McLean is a nobody who’s trying to hang onto the coat tails of Carter, who in turn was hoist with his own petard when he endorsed the Heartland poster (his benefactor) and pursued the failed NZ court case. Some people have hypothesised that Marohasy is running a giant Poe hoax on deniers. Even if she’s for real then it might as well be.

Efforts are better spent elsewhere than writing to them – for what it’s worth🙂

Fringe dwellers or not, they do have a following of sorts. I regularly come across people quoting them. No doubt some of them may be batshit crazy, but there is a bigger picture here. You have to remember, its not about the hardcore lunatics but those who are undecided. Being associated with batshit crazy anti-semetic conspiracy theorists could be just the thing to turn a number of people off. While it would be awesome to strike a massive blow to the denial movement and make everyine see reason by exposing the big guys like Watts and company, I suspect it will be more likely that we do it in small steps by categorizing the little guys, not just for our side but also so deniers can start marginilising each other.

Very true. A point I’ve made many times in my battles over the years. You wouldn’t believe how often I’ve laid forth that simple challenge of “Produce and defend a single publicly accessible scientific study…” with never a taker out there.

WTD, I knew as I was writing my previous comment that I’d made a major point of that nonanswer=answer thing at some point fairly recently. Tonight, as I’m proofreading one of the final sections of my sequel to “Brains” I found this on page 376:

“[I’ve made a series of] “Challenges” to various antismoking advocates and politicians in public forums. They’re similar to some of the challenges I’ve offered as letters to the editor, but on the Internet there’s room to lay them out in more detail, and the ability to return to them and point out the lack of answer they’ve received from supposedly responsible public officials or journalists who have been fully notified of their existence. They’re rarely answered, but the very lack of an answer serves as an answer in and of itself.”

In the original I provide several links to various news boards where I’ve asked editors, researchers, and politicians to back up their claims… and they never do.

I will say this. They won’t debate you for the same reason Richard Dawkins won’t debate creationists. Our why Al Gore won’t debate climate change “sceptics”. They don’t want to give you a platform, nor do they see you having a legitimate scientific position due to lack of training, expertise or track record in peer-reviewed literature.

WTD, Yep, I know what the dynamic is. They’ve got the public microphone and it’s foolish for them to open it up for sharing. The Internet provides a level playing field, one where they can be challenged to cite studies backing their claims and called on false citations or simplistic sound bites … so, with a few exceptions that have proven painful for them (e.g. James Repace’s entry into a debate during a trial where he was supposedly an “Expert Witness but wasn’t able to cite even a single study to back up his health claims, or not quite as strongly, Simon Chapman’s current backing out of debates here and at “The Conversation) we don’t see them engaging us. And when they *do* acknowledge us it’s usually in the process of presenting straw men, ad hominems, or simple false accusations.

I disagree however that they back down from debate because they don’t see us as having legitimate credentials/record: that’s the *excuse* they use to avoid the debate. I’ll admit I haven’t followed the science on the climate debate closely enough to really follow in detail some of what I’ve seen here or in forums like WTD, but I’ve seen the same patterns/styles/tactics used by the mainstream global warmers that I’ve seen in the secondhand smoke campaigns and that tends to make me lean more strongly toward the skeptical side of things. They wouldn’t be avoiding a board like this for fear of being attacked: They would WELCOME the attacks so that they could show how wrong you are. Heh, I *love* the smell of attacks in the morning! ;>

Mike, I could’n find the banking family names mentioned at Bolt’s site or Galileo’s site. Do you have a reference for where they are named and which ones? Also, are you sure it is something endorsed by the Galileo Movement, or just the one person’s opinion?

Well I was curious. So I have read everything I could find. I could not find any reference by the GM or Roberts to comments about Jews, or Jewish families or anything which could be considered anti-semitic. I could see nothing written by Ben Cubby suggesting that GM or Roberts said anything anti-semitic. What I did read is that Andrew Bolt read the reference to ‘International Bankers’ and ‘Banking Families’ and ‘Cabal of bankers’ in the Cubby article, quoting Roberts and Bolt has assumed that it was ‘code’ for Jewish banking families.

What Bolt says may be so that for the people in the ‘know’ such terminology is code for anti-semitics references to Jewish financiers, but Roberts has been at pains to assure Bolt, as has Evans and Nova, that they have no anti-semitic views.

In fact I read in one reference a number of the members of the GM are either Jewish or married to or directly related to Jewish people, so it is hardly likely they are going to have an anti-semitic position.

I do believe that the theory that much of the Global Warming ‘scare’ has originated and/or been supported and financed by a global governance conspiracy of types does have some legs when you do a bit of reading.

I am loath to write this for risk of being thought a nutter conspiracy theorist and tin foil hat wearer. But I have to tell you that yes, in fact there is a group of people who are keen to ‘control’ the world and have been using global warming/climate change as their leverage for the past four decades.

I certainly do not believe that every scientist or environmental activist or individual who believes that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change are part of a global conspiracy, and I have read widely and not read a serious skeptic make such a claim.

However I also know that there is ample historical, documented evidence that a number of global organisations have recognised that the ‘environment’ is the one tool which can be used to obtain a one world government. This ‘one world government’ would trump the sovereign rights of nations in areas such as population control, trade, carbon emissions, taxes, resource production and usage, land utilisation and a whole lot of other factors all in the innocuous name of ‘sustainability’.

There are many people who see the benefit in such an organisation from people such as the recently retired leader of the Greens, Bob Brown who suggested it in his last major speech, to others like John Holdren, Obama’s Chief scientific adviser who co-authored a book with proposals along those lines.

If you have done any research on global conspiracy theories you will be aware that The Club of Rome really exists and their reach into the financial and political centres of influence around the world are extensive to say the least.

They don’t just get some of the world’s richest and most influential people together including the leaders of old European nobility, ex prime ministers and presidents (including ex US and USSR presidents), and ex Secretary Generals of the UN, leaders of major global financial institutions and corporations and have a nice little chit chat every now and then. Perhaps this is what GM and Roberts were referring to?

The Club of Rome’s meetings are not secret, but they are held in secret. Occasionally they publish papers. But mainly it is up to their members to go away and use their influence to achieve the Club’s goals and report back to the next meeting. Of course those with the inside knowledge can also make all the right financial decisions! Handy that for making more money! Amazing how George Soros for example does so well! And how many members’ funds does he manage?

Current members from Maurice Strong who was essentially responsible for the establishment of UNEP (and eventually the IPCC), and AL Gore are key to the whole Global Warming theme.

But if you and your readers really want to get an idea of how The Club of Rome is so easily linked to part of the key thrust of funding and support for something which will reign in human growth (and CO2 is the best way to do it), then check out this brief synopsis: http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

You can read that, understand that ‘climate change’ has a huge global ‘conspiracy’ of support behind it of bankers, politicians and bureaucrats connected to the Club of Rome, while still believing that human CO2 emissions cause dangerous climate change.

In that case, you may feel relieved that with that kind of support your ‘side’ is assured of victory, provided that you have no qualms about your democratic freedoms being taken away from you. Though if you are in the same camp as rabid Green Professor of Ethics and Public Policy Clive Hamilton, you would agree that Climate Change is such an urgent issue that democracy needs to be suspended so that immediate action can be taken.

You would therefore also support the United Nations Agenda 21: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/ which is a ‘voluntary’ code which has been signed up to by (from memory) 179 countries around the world. Your own shire council may have also pledged to meet the requirements of Agenda 21 even though we have never voted on its contents as a shire, State or Country.

But again, if you aren’t concerned about the suspension of democracy, and you believe you can always trust an all powerful bunch of ever growing unelected bureaucrats who can rule over almost every aspect of your life and who you can’t vote out, then you have nothing to worry about.

Agenda 21 is essentially exactly the goals as set by the Club of Rome. The fact that the Agenda was formulated and put forward by leading members of the Club of Rome, well I guess that’s just a coincidence, not a conspiracy.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”- Club of Rome

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

SOME CLUB OF ROME MEMBERS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF:
Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.
Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.
Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.
Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.
Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honor.
Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations ‘Champion of the Earth’.
Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.
Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.
Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway
Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.
The Dalai Lama – The ‘Spiritual Leader’ of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.
Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.
Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist
Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the ‘Global Commons’ concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.
Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionaire, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the Temple of Understanding
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
‘Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
A full list of full members is here: http://clubofrome.org/cms/?cat=51 and other members can be obtained from the Club of Rome and Associated Websites.

Sou, you seem to be correct about emails, although it’s something I’ve never understood: once I write a letter to someone on a public matter (as opposed to personal ‘life” stuff) I think I would generally consider those comments to be potentially public, however I recently received an email from an antismoking researcher in which the researcher demanded that emails they’d written to me — ones specifically defending their integrity — could not be reproduced! Very surprising given the fact that the reason I wanted to reproduce them was simply to offer them a “level playing field” in the face of what I was saying about their work!

To criticize the banking system is to imply that jewish people are capable of large scale wrongdoing, an impossibility established over many years by hollywood. Therefore claims made against the banks do not need to be taken seriously. In fact, even if banking can be proven to be an immoral way of concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority, noticing that truth leads to anti-semetism, as wtd has shown, so, again, the jewish people are the victims here. Its really not that complicated.

Just kidding James, good post.

Covering up banking crime is now impossible. The majority may not get it, but a hardcore group of conspiracist ideators is distributed amongst them like static on a viewscreen. Gradually the whole picture will be transformed.

Many working in ‘make believe’ are scared, they are losing control of the narrative, thats why we have laws about historical events and site like this one, specializing in cyber-bullying.

People have lost the fear of being labelled racist for questioning reality, wtd, this is not the 90’s, keep trying.